Originally posted by rwingett Still, that's a rather selective vision in a world that is otherwise filled with worsening environmental indicators.
What are these environmental indicators and what is their actual impact on us?
For example, suppose all whale species go extinct. I am sure this would impact the oceans ecology quite significantly. But how much would it affect say people living in a landlocked country like Zambia?
Most of Europe has totally changed its ecology over the last few thousand years. Has this negatively affected the people there?
Originally posted by rwingett Still, that's a rather selective vision in a world that is otherwise filled with worsening environmental indicators. For every environmental disaster we manage to clean up, several more are made significantly worse. It's a race, I'm afraid, that we are not winning. But the technological positivists bask in the glow of Fukushima and tell us in Panglossian fashion that it is the best of all possible worlds.
I was highlighting that not everything is doom and gloom. What has happened to the waterways of the industrial heartlands of England over the last 50-60 years can serve as a template for the rest of the world. In the 1950's the River Irwell, which separates Manchester and Salford, was so polluted nothing lived in it. This excerpt was from a 1950's report -
"There are no fish in these rivers (apart from a very occasional tributary), no insects, no weeds, no life of any kind except sewage fungus, nothing but chemicals and any dirt which cannot be put to profitable use. Sewage effluents (and, being usually very good, they are the most encouraging feature of the appalling situation) are hailed with delight as being the purest water which the rivers hold."
60 years later after a number of improvement initiatives the Irwell has some of the highest fish spawning and growth rates in England.
Originally posted by twhitehead What are these environmental indicators and what is their actual impact on us?
For example, suppose all whale species go extinct. I am sure this would impact the oceans ecology quite significantly. But how much would it affect say people living in a landlocked country like Zambia?
Most of Europe has totally changed its ecology over the last few thousand years. Has this negatively affected the people there?
One rather large environmental indicator would be the current level of 395.15 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ( http://co2now.org/ ). How do you think that's going to impact you if it keeps rising?
Originally posted by Proper Knob I was highlighting that not everything is doom and gloom. What has happened to the waterways of the industrial heartlands of England over the last 50-60 years can serve as a template for the rest of the world. In the 1950's the River Irwell, which separates Manchester and Salford, was so polluted nothing lived in it. This excerpt was from a 1950's report ...[text shortened]... vement initiatives the Irwell has some of the highest fish spawning and growth rates in England.
Those are some impressive rose colored glasses you've got on there. One success story in a world filled with abject failure and you're ready to wave the victory flag.
Originally posted by rwingett Those are some impressive rose colored glasses you've got on there. One success story in a world filled with abject failure and you're ready to wave the victory flag.
No victory flag being raised here, merely highlighting what can be achieved when collective will is put together.
Originally posted by rwingett One rather large environmental indicator would be the current level of 395.15 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ( http://co2now.org/ ). How do you think that's going to impact you if it keeps rising?
So when you said "a world that is otherwise filled with worsening environmental indicators", you added the plural by mistake and were really only referring to one big one?
I do not dispute that global warming is a big issue. I am however reluctant to conclude that global warming will necessarily result in lowered living standards on average globally.
Originally posted by twhitehead So when you said "a world that is otherwise filled with worsening environmental indicators", you added the plural by mistake and were really only referring to one big one?
I do not dispute that global warming is a big issue. I am however reluctant to conclude that global warming will necessarily result in lowered living standards on average globally.
No, it was not a mistake. It was merely one choice among many.
Of course you're reluctant to "conclude that global warming will necessarily result in lowered living." Your technological positivism, the bias with which you look at the world, requires you to keep the faith in the salvific power of technology. Otherwise you'd have to confront the systemic defects which are driving our numerous unfolding ecological cataclysms (the precise enumeration of which you can google as well as I).
Originally posted by rwingett No, it was not a mistake. It was merely one choice among many.
So why could you only find one?
Your technological positivism, the bias with which you look at the world, requires you to keep the faith in the salvific power of technology. Actually no, not at all. It is my familiarity with true poverty, something you lack. You are looking at the rich and thinking they may get a bit poorer with global warming. I am looking at the very poor and thinking that despite global warming, the spread of education will probably lift their standard of living.
Originally posted by twhitehead So why could you only find one?
[b]Your technological positivism, the bias with which you look at the world, requires you to keep the faith in the salvific power of technology. Actually no, not at all. It is my familiarity with true poverty, something you lack. You are looking at the rich and thinking they may get a bit poorer with global warming. ...[text shortened]... hat despite global warming, the spread of education will probably lift their standard of living.[/b]
Our earth....
03 Oct '13 11:17
Back to Top